Thursday, March 08, 2012

Calif. Wants Over-representation of Gay Judges

The Judicial Applicant and Appointment Demographics Inclusion Act [SB 182], which took effect Jan. 1, requires the state to ask its 1,600 judges whether they are homosexual. The goal is to “promote and increase the representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the state’s judicial branch,” according to Equality California, which pushed for the bill.Click hereto read census data and other pro-homosexual research that shows the homosexual population in America is between 1% to 2%.

A new report . . . [shows] of the 1,678 judges serving on the state's courts, which includes the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and trial courts, only 1 percent self-identify as gay and 1.1 percent as lesbian. There is one transgender judge and no known bisexual jurists.

. . . Kelly M. Dermody, an out lesbian and partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP [said] "Unfortunately, these figures also highlight the significant work that remains to be done to achieve full diversity and inclusion on the bench."

The data comes from a report released last week by the Administrative Office of the Courts. It is the first time demographic data on the gender identity and sexual orientation of California state judges and justices was included among the annual information on the ethnicity, race, and gender composition of the courts.

While close to 58 percent of the jurists said they were heterosexual, 40 percent of judges and justices did not answer the question about their sexual orientation or gender identity [some of whom are probably] judges who are gay and lesbian and are still closeted.

The legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Ellen Corbett, a Democrat, passed on largely party-line votes without fanfare, but it has come under fire by conservatives who accuse the gay-rights lobby of wanting to have it both ways.

While advocates would have vilified anyone who tried to expose a gay public figure in previous years, “[n]ow, however, that Proposition 8 [marriage protection amendment] has been attacked in court, and the ruse no longer needs to be maintained, it’s okay to ask questions about who is and who isn’t ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ because the answer to that question will help ensure there are enough like-minded justices to keep the homosexual agenda afloat in California,” Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin Nimocks said in a column.

Supporters say that having a number of gay judges on the bench is important to ensure that Californians have confidence in the fairness of their judicial system.